African elephants are being born without tusks due to poaching, researchers say - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Fox Powers;51433183]Would this affect in the normal day of an elephant? Y'know, some things being difficult without tusks[/QUOTE] Yes

This is impossible, didn't even read the article yet but i know there is no way this can happen with elephants evolutionarily so fast. Read the article and i dont know since im not an expert but i think something else is going on here... tuskless elephants are unable to look for food and usually die pretty fast, poaching is under control for a decade or so and the article states females without tusks are more likely to have cubs without tusks but i just cant see tuskless elephants being selected positively since its so debilitating for them combined with only maybe 4 or 5 generations having passed since poaching got them into trouble.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51433257]This is impossible, didn't even read the article yet but i know there is no way this can happen with elephants evolutionarily so fast.[/QUOTE] Elephants with big-tusk genes die off because people need their decorations and traditional medicine, elephants with small-or-no-tusk genes live to make babbies.

[QUOTE=Riller;51433295]Elephants with big-tusk genes die off because people need their decorations and traditional medicine, elephants with small-or-no-tusk genes live to make babbies.[/QUOTE] Yet the phenomena can been seen happening to different isolated groups of elephants individually and only a couple generations have happened since. evolution is a slow process, nothing like this even when put under extreme strain.

[QUOTE=Hellsten;51432251]Isn't that extraordinary quick evolution?.[/QUOTE] Selective pressure forces fairly rapid apparent adaption on the pressure of eradication. In most cases, this selective pressure is not immediate or specific, and thus the randomization of mutations does not focus in any particular direction or with any significance in being pronounced, however, the powerful and rapid effects of humanity cull out attributes at a rate comparable to and classifiable as an extinction event, even to some creatures which are not negatively affected by (or even benefit from) human influence. (For example, while many songbirds have adapted well to urban areas, most are selectively pressured to be higher-pitched and louder than usual to be audible against the lower-toned background ambience of vehicles) Reminder that the evolution of an organism lineage, while fairly random, still genetically trends away from characteristics which increase liklihood of death just by virtue of this increasing the prospects of reaching a breeding age. (This is part of the reason that mimicry in the animal world has such an uncanny ability for looking authentically similar to the intended appearance, as although initially looking vaguely similar to another organism was a sheer random coincidence, there is an effective pressure (though not on the magnitude of poaching, of course) for descendents to look either [i]as[/i] similar or [i]more[/i] similar than their competition, leading to the logical conclusion of near convergence in appearance) It's not so much that evolution is slow as that it has no true guidance, with breeding by humanity being an example of a positive spin on guidance and, well, not so much in this case or the resistance of insects to certain chemicals by virtue of wiping out only the individuals that were vulnerable, leaving only the ones that could tolerate the insecticides to survive and breed.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51433304]Yet the phenomena can been seen happening to different isolated groups of elephants individually and only a couple generations have happened since. evolution is a slow process, nothing like this even when put under extreme strain.[/QUOTE] this is a really outdated view of evolution it's a chaotic process, moving in leaps and bounds lots of progress is made all at once, followed by millenia of stasis [editline]26th November 2016[/editline] also there's some limited amount of adaption possible with very little genetic differences so that changes can occur quickly

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51433304]Yet the phenomena can been seen happening to different isolated groups of elephants individually and only a couple generations have happened since. evolution is a slow process, nothing like this even when put under extreme strain.[/QUOTE]Microevolution can happen in the span of one generation, especially when evolutionary pressures are extreme.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51433257]This is impossible, didn't even read the article yet but i know there is no way this can happen with elephants evolutionarily so fast. Read the article and i dont know since im not an expert but i think something else is going on here... tuskless elephants are unable to look for food and usually die pretty fast, poaching is under control for a decade or so and the article states females without tusks are more likely to have cubs without tusks but i just cant see tuskless elephants being selected positively since its so debilitating for them combined with only maybe 4 or 5 generations having passed since poaching got them into trouble.[/QUOTE] The females are actively choosing mates without tusks because they know they are just going to get killed anyways [editline]26th November 2016[/editline] Elephants never forget man

[QUOTE=Mr_Plumrich;51432498]Nature did not respond quickly, as in this is not due to evolution. It is just so that elephant without tusks is not targeted for poaching, therefore they can spread their genes.[/QUOTE] That's what evolution is about. Living long enough to reproduce is "good enough".

BTW evolutionary fitness "describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation". Has nothing to do with being awesome at killing shit, so if you're outbreeding other elephants that automatically means you have greater evolutionary fitness. Something to chew on: If shit went down and all humans were exposed to HIV, and say all die except those with HIV immune blood, then tada, evolution instantaneously "happened".

[QUOTE=fulgrim;51432613]You are both correct. Nature is responding quickly to a purely human threat. This [i] is [/i] evolution. It's survival of the fittest- it's just that in this case the criteria for fitness is "how likely is it that a human is going to shoot the animal for it's tusks" as opposed to anything more conventional.[/QUOTE] Reminder that maize was originally [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zea_(plant)"]this[/URL] before early human civilizations in Mexico decided to make it much more edible through very early gene modification (i.e: interbreeding). Of course though, that was an intentional change, and this one in particular is still going to take a really long time for it to affect the general gene pool.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51432273]It's not evolution, it's eugenics.[/QUOTE] It's not eugenics, it's evolution.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51432659]that's not how evolution works lmao[/QUOTE] Why are you laughing that is exactly how evolution works. [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51432697]It's not so much survival of the fittest as it is the fittest are being slaughtered so the not so fit excel. It's natural selection in the reverse. The whole reason this is happening is not necessarily and adaptation from a natural threat, but rather an adoption of "less superior" traits due to the hunting of those with the best traits. Simply put the elephants with little or no tusks are not being hunted, so they're the ones that propagate.[/QUOTE]The criteria for fitness doesn't mean anything other than ability to reach sexual maturity and breed. If having tusks prevents that then it is not fit to have tusks, this is not natural selection in reverse, this is normal natural selection. This isn't even artificial selection because humans were not purposely breeding only elephants with no tusks. Humans are the predator that put a selective pressure on elephants. [editline]27th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Hellsten;51432251]Isn't that extraordinary quick evolution? [editline]...[/editline] Oh okay I didn't read the article. I thought the poached elephant population miraculously started giving birth to calves without tusks.[/QUOTE] Its a random mutation. It is adaptation. We aren't talking about a new species, just a new trait. It might only be a random mutation of a few select genes. [editline]27th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr_Plumrich;51432498]Nature did not respond quickly, as in this is not due to evolution. It is just so that elephant without tusks is not targeted for poaching, therefore they can spread their genes.[/QUOTE] That is evolution by definition [editline]27th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Blizzerd;51433257]This is impossible, didn't even read the article yet but i know there is no way this can happen with elephants evolutionarily so fast. Read the article and i dont know since im not an expert but i think something else is going on here... tuskless elephants are unable to look for food and usually die pretty fast, poaching is under control for a decade or so and the article states females without tusks are more likely to have cubs without tusks but i just cant see tuskless elephants being selected positively since its so debilitating for them combined with only maybe 4 or 5 generations having passed since poaching got them into trouble.[/QUOTE] Why would a random mutation not be possible? There's a massive selective pressure that puts a massive disadvantage to elephants with tusks. All it takes is a single elephant with a single random mutation of a possible single or few genes to change an entire population over a few decades. Elephants being born without tusks is apparently a common mutation which indicates the genes that control it are probably few which makes mutations that affect those genes expressing itself in a noticeable phenotype change more possible. Since it was already a common mutation, all it took was the selective pressure of killing off all tusk elephants to allow tuskless populations to become normal. Who knows, after most of the population physically looks tuskless, the elephants might start to select only elephants that look like the majority as potential mates which further puts pressure on the propogation of tuskless elephants.

[QUOTE=.Vel;51434619]It's not eugenics, it's evolution.[/QUOTE] Isn't eugenics just selected evolution?

It's not like there aren't tuskless elephants anymore, the females are just actively choosing mates without tusks to ensure their offspring will actually have a better chance of survival. They're really intelligent animals.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51433304]Yet the phenomena can been seen happening to different isolated groups of elephants individually and only a couple generations have happened since. evolution is a slow process, nothing like this even when put under extreme strain.[/QUOTE] Let's clear up what's happened here in comparison to the millions of years it took for elephants to develop tusks in the first place. In order for the species that would become modern day elephants to develop tusks, they went through random mutations that are a side effect of breeding. These tiny mutations have tiny effects on the population. Over time, these tiny effects on the population build up and support the selection of creatures with that mutation IF it helps them survive slightly better. A looooooong time later, you have tusks and ears and complicated features. THIS takes a long time. If an intelligent external force comes along and says "I'm going to kill every elephant with the biggest best tusks", that's artificial selection. It's no longer based on random chance. That's the difference here. Natural evolution is based on random chance and tiny changes maybe helping the population or maybe not, until you get a significant feature. Artificial selection can happen much quicker. Dog breeding is an example of how quickly artificial selection can have an effect on a species.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;51432520]That's what evolution is though?[/QUOTE] Yeh, artificial selection

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;51435033]Let's clear up what's happened here in comparison to the millions of years it took for elephants to develop tusks in the first place. In order for the species that would become modern day elephants to develop tusks, they went through random mutations that are a side effect of breeding. These tiny mutations have tiny effects on the population. Over time, these tiny effects on the population build up and support the selection of creatures with that mutation IF it helps them survive slightly better. A looooooong time later, you have tusks and ears and complicated features. THIS takes a long time. If an intelligent external force comes along and says "I'm going to kill every elephant with the biggest best tusks", that's artificial selection. It's no longer based on random chance. That's the difference here. Natural evolution is based on random chance and tiny changes maybe helping the population or maybe not, until you get a significant feature. Artificial selection can happen much quicker. Dog breeding is an example of how quickly artificial selection can have an effect on a species.[/QUOTE] It is still dependent of the random mutation of a tuskless elephant. Which happens to already be present in a lot of populations of elephants. Just because humans are involved doesn't make this artificial selection. Artificial selection would infer that humans were seeking tuskless elephants and breeding them until there were no tusked elephants which isn't the case. This change in the elephants will make them less desirable to humans rather than more desirable which is the purpose of artificially selecting traits. Humans are animals too. [editline]27th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=MrJazzy;51435048]Yeh, artificial selection[/QUOTE] not artificial for the reason I stated above.

[QUOTE=Aztec;51435054]It is still dependent of the random mutation of a tuskless elephant. Which happens to already be present in a lot of populations of elephants.[/QUOTE] Saying "I'm going to kill off all the elephants that have large tusks" isn't random. That's a specific targeted trait. If the elephants with the largest tusks are killed off, the tusks WILL get shorter. [QUOTE=Aztec;51435054]Just because humans are involved doesn't make this artificial selection. Artificial selection would infer that humans were seeking tuskless elephants and breeding them until there were no tusked elephants which isn't the case. This change in the elephants will make them less desirable to humans rather than more desirable which is the purpose of artificially selecting traits.[/QUOTE] A more apt term would be "selective breeding", which this is. It's just that the selective breeding was an unintentional side effect of trying to hunt for a specific part.

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;51435099]Saying "I'm going to kill off all the elephants that have large tusks" isn't random. That's a specific targeted trait. If the elephants with the largest tusks are killed off, the tusks WILL get shorter. A more apt term would be "selective breeding", which this is. It's just that the selective breeding was an unintentional side effect of trying to hunt for a specific part.[/QUOTE] It's "not random" selective breeding as much as lions targetting specifically gazelles because they taste good is "not random" selective breeding. Humans are animals and aren't special and they purposely killed elephants for their own benefit and the mechanism of natural selection worked as intended to express elephant populations that were more likely to reproduce without being killed. Sorry but that isn't artificial selection. It doesn't matter if it's a targeted trait. The gene itself has to undergo a mutation in order for the tuskless version to express itself in a population. It just happens to be a fact that this mutation has already occurred many times in elephants and the pressures that pushed towards tusklessness allowed it to become more popular. Human poachers kill elephants for reasons that benefit their own survival. There is no difference in the way a poacher kills an elephant in order to gain financial power to survive and a lion eating a gazelle in order to gain chemical energy to survive. Both related to some form of survival that puts the prey in a situation where less desirable traits get killed off. Again that has nothing to do with artificial selection or selective breeding.

[QUOTE=Aztec;51435121]It's selective breeding as much as lions targetting specifically gazelles because they taste good is selective breeding. [/QUOTE] Your comparison isn't analogous to this situation because lions aren't picking out gazelles because part of them is larger than any other. We are picking elephants with the largest tusks. If a lion sees spots a gazelle AT ALL, it goes after it. The poachers are picking out elephants specifically with the largest tusks.

[QUOTE=Aztec;51435121]It's "not random" selective breeding as much as lions targetting specifically gazelles because they taste good is "not random" selective breeding. Humans are animals and aren't special and they purposely killed elephants for their own benefit and the mechanism of natural selection worked as intended to express elephant populations that were more likely to reproduce without being killed. Sorry but that isn't artificial selection. It doesn't matter if it's a targeted trait. The gene itself has to undergo a mutation in order for the tuskless version to express itself in a population. It just happens to be a fact that this mutation has already occurred many times in elephants and the pressures that pushed towards tusklessness allowed it to become more popular. Human poachers kill elephants for reasons that benefit their own survival. There is literally no difference in the way a poacher kills an elephant in order to gain financial power to survive and a lion eating a gazelle in order to gain chemical energy to survive. Both related to some form of survival that puts the prey in a situation where less desirable traits get killed off. Again that has nothing to do with artificial selection or selective breeding.[/QUOTE] You're saying the exact same thing as Snickerdoodle but with different words.

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;51435135]Your comparison isn't analogous to this situation because lions aren't picking out gazelles because part of them is larger than any other. We are picking elephants with the largest tusks. If a lion sees spots a gazelle AT ALL, it goes after it. The poachers are picking out elephants specifically with the largest tusks.[/QUOTE] It targets them for a reason. All predators target prey for a reason. The reason itself doesn't matter. There is nothing artificial about predators targeting prey for a particular reason. That is just how predator prey relationships work. Human's just have more complex reasons but it ultimately is the exact same mechanism.

[QUOTE=Aztec;51435121]It's "not random" selective breeding as much as lions targetting specifically gazelles because they taste good is "not random" selective breeding..[/QUOTE] this is retarded, lions don't pick specific prey,they are opportunistic hunters, they don't give a shit what animal they decide to eat, be it a zebra or gazelle or whatever. Meat is meat.

[QUOTE=Arc Nova;51435137]You're saying the exact same thing as Snickerdoodle but with different words.[/QUOTE] We are saying the same thing except he is saying this is a mechanism of artificial selection and I'm saying that considering this artificial selection is human-centric since it is clearly the exact mechanism of natural selection.

[QUOTE=Aztec;51435143]It targets them for a reason. All predators target prey for a reason. [B]The reason itself doesn't matter.[/B] There is nothing artificial about predators targeting prey for a particular reason. That is just how predator prey relationships work. Human's just have more complex reasons but it ultimately is the exact same mechanism.[/QUOTE] The reason matters when we're talking about the speed of the arrival of tuskless elephants. That's what we're talking about here. We're talking about why these elephants were born without tusks in a much shorter time than they evolved them.

[QUOTE=Arc Nova;51435145]this is retarded, lions don't pick specific prey,they are opportunistic hunters, they don't give a shit what animal they decide to eat, be it a zebra or gazelle or whatever. Meat is meat.[/QUOTE] They do actually give a shit what animals they decide to eat. They won't select animals that are larger than them as much as animals that are smaller and weaker than them which is a selective pressure that in general gives rise to megafauna. They (they being the collection of predators that existed in Africa for millionsof years) didn't "selectively breed" the megafauna though.

[QUOTE=Aztec;51435146]We are saying the same thing except he is saying this is a mechanism of artificial selection and I'm saying that considering this artificial selection is human-centric since it is clearly the exact mechanism of natural selection.[/QUOTE] does it really matter, at the end of the day humans are playing a major role in this and it has been documented since 1998. [editline]27th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Aztec;51435149]They do actually give a shit what animals they decide to eat. They won't select animals that are larger than them as much as animals that are smaller and weaker than them which is a selective pressure... [/QUOTE] Have you never seen a group of lions take down a giraffe or elephant before? They will take down a much larger animal using pack hunting tactics. It happens all the time.

[QUOTE=.Vel;51434619]It's not eugenics, it's evolution.[/QUOTE] It's a pretty decent analogy though. If humans wanted to get rid of some genetic trait, was able to detect it as easily as it is to visually identify tusks, and began mass extermination of those with the trait, that trait ain't lasting long.

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;51435147]The reason matters when we're talking about the speed of the arrival of tuskless elephants. That's what we're talking about here. We're talking about why these elephants were born without tusks in a much shorter time than they evolved them.[/QUOTE] It really doesn't matter. Two things come to mind. First off, bird beaks are known to adapt incredibly quickly when selective pressures are put on them. Sometimes within a few hundred generations. This isn't new stuff. Second off, there could be a non-human pressure for elephant tusks being disadvantageous. I don't know what that would be because it doesnt exist (maybe a bacteria that causes an infection at the base of the tusk and kills them, maybe a predator that somehow uses the tusks to trap them) but if there was a non-human pressure then it would occur in the exact same way.